We need to be clear that this call up was requested by Allen Warren. Since he was soundly defeated in the recent election, there is no need for city staff to anticipate this being reconsidered at any time. There is a new sheriff in D2, and he is on record as opposing this “project”. Elections do really have consequences. The bizarre image AW had for Del Paso Blvd as being a new Amsterdam is over.
This item has been strenuously objected to in prior meetings so I don't know why it's back on the table. We don't need a dispensary that close to St. Josephs Church and school. Nay, we don't need another one in District 2 at all. Why always in underserved neighborhoods? If I can believe what I have read, and this business intends to allow consuming their product on the premises, I ABSOLUTELY object. Why not just call it a party house where you have to purchase your drugs there first? Think of the crime open use of marijuana on the premises may bring! I'm not opposed to mamajuana use in general, but do you really need to consistently open these dispensaries in under served neighborhoods? And wasn't there language in the initial passage of the legality of medical/recreational marijuana that stated no use on site? While driving by, I've seen such signs posted on existing businesses. This is a really bad idea!
I oppose the permit for this marijuana business on Del Paso Blvd. There are already too many of these types of businesses in the area and the proximity of this one to a school+church is unacceptable. There are other ways to stimulate economic development on the Blvd. without permitting ANOTHER dispensary.
We need to be clear that this call up was requested by Allen Warren. Since he was soundly defeated in the recent election, there is no need for city staff to anticipate this being reconsidered at any time. There is a new sheriff in D2, and he is on record as opposing this “project”. Elections do really have consequences. The bizarre image AW had for Del Paso Blvd as being a new Amsterdam is over.
This item has been strenuously objected to in prior meetings so I don't know why it's back on the table. We don't need a dispensary that close to St. Josephs Church and school. Nay, we don't need another one in District 2 at all. Why always in underserved neighborhoods? If I can believe what I have read, and this business intends to allow consuming their product on the premises, I ABSOLUTELY object. Why not just call it a party house where you have to purchase your drugs there first? Think of the crime open use of marijuana on the premises may bring! I'm not opposed to mamajuana use in general, but do you really need to consistently open these dispensaries in under served neighborhoods? And wasn't there language in the initial passage of the legality of medical/recreational marijuana that stated no use on site? While driving by, I've seen such signs posted on existing businesses. This is a really bad idea!
As a resident of North Sacramento and a voter in District 2, I STRONGLY OPPOSE a marijuana dispensary in this location.
I oppose the permit for this marijuana business on Del Paso Blvd. There are already too many of these types of businesses in the area and the proximity of this one to a school+church is unacceptable. There are other ways to stimulate economic development on the Blvd. without permitting ANOTHER dispensary.